Good initiative, but it is regressive
Omkar Sapre, Pune's Economic Times, has raised some doubts about this initiative (the blog), and has other grievances:
Dear Thakur Sir,
I like your initiative, but I see this as regressive too. How many years more are we going to ask journos to use the same words and same language that journos used 20 years ago? What was difficult then, has become simple now in terms of the usage of words. People, apart from reading newspapers for news, also read them to improve their language. So I see no harm in using new words, but the real question here is do we have journalists (particularly from among those being churned out of J-Schools in recent times) who are themselves skilled at using the right words. People become a journalist, because they cannot do anything else. The bulk of the people entering journalism courses are the ones who aim to pursue competitive exams, and enrol in journalism courses to brush up their writing skills so can they score in essay papers. Most of them fail in these exams in spite of repeated attempts and are later absorbed in journalism because they have 'diploma in journalism'.
Hardly a handful people become journalists because they are passionate about the professions. Whether our J-Schools are able to recognise or instil this passion in their students is a big question mark. When I applied for MA at the DOCJ, I was already five years into the profession and was committed to work in and work for this profession. But I was rejected admission, god know why, in favour of freshers, which has inflicted a lot of loss on me. Secondly, profession of journalism is so dynamic, that one needs to constantly keep up pace with it and has also drastically changed over the last 10 years. But has our teaching upgraded itself, is something we need to give a thought. During my days at DOCJ, I hardly came across any current journalist passionately coming to teach. It is sad that the department has not been able to use the knowledge former students who have now become professional Everything is easier said than done, so I volunteered myself for this cause and helped out one batch. However the department never called me after that, instead to teach what I taught, they got in a person who is not a journalist and whose raw copies are a nightmare of a sub-editor. First the dept failed in realising my passion to work in journalism, and could also not realise my passion to work for it. So now I have turned my back on the department for good for ever. Whose loss is it?
English is a not a tough language, in fact it is as hard or as easy as any other language or subject. But we need good teachers who can teach this language effectively. Do we have them in numbers they need to be, the answer would invariably be no. Similarly as journalists, most teachers also become teachers because they have nothing else. It's easy to pass or manage a B.Ed. The eligibility of teachers in PMC schools is 12th pass, I read in a advertisement. Even in other schools, the conditions are not that good. Go to the top two colleges in Pune and you will find that the teachers who teach english to BA and MA classes, cannot even speak fluently. If this is the state and such are the teachers, what more can we expect? Students coming out of such teaching and then enrolling at such J-schools, become journalists and then end up molesting the English language. It's an era of Shift+F7 and with students coming out of poor teaching, they are going to misuse it, throwing heavy and misfit words at the readers. With most readers too coming out of such schools and colleges, they find even simple words hard.
So when the disease lies in the heart and brain, we are trying to treat the hand.
Sorry, I may have gone on a different path, but that's what I feel on the entire issue.
Regards
Omkar
PS: I recently got a question from a DOCJ student that whether the state education secretary I was talking to was the secretary of the education minster.
Dear Thakur Sir,
I like your initiative, but I see this as regressive too. How many years more are we going to ask journos to use the same words and same language that journos used 20 years ago? What was difficult then, has become simple now in terms of the usage of words. People, apart from reading newspapers for news, also read them to improve their language. So I see no harm in using new words, but the real question here is do we have journalists (particularly from among those being churned out of J-Schools in recent times) who are themselves skilled at using the right words. People become a journalist, because they cannot do anything else. The bulk of the people entering journalism courses are the ones who aim to pursue competitive exams, and enrol in journalism courses to brush up their writing skills so can they score in essay papers. Most of them fail in these exams in spite of repeated attempts and are later absorbed in journalism because they have 'diploma in journalism'.
Hardly a handful people become journalists because they are passionate about the professions. Whether our J-Schools are able to recognise or instil this passion in their students is a big question mark. When I applied for MA at the DOCJ, I was already five years into the profession and was committed to work in and work for this profession. But I was rejected admission, god know why, in favour of freshers, which has inflicted a lot of loss on me. Secondly, profession of journalism is so dynamic, that one needs to constantly keep up pace with it and has also drastically changed over the last 10 years. But has our teaching upgraded itself, is something we need to give a thought. During my days at DOCJ, I hardly came across any current journalist passionately coming to teach. It is sad that the department has not been able to use the knowledge former students who have now become professional Everything is easier said than done, so I volunteered myself for this cause and helped out one batch. However the department never called me after that, instead to teach what I taught, they got in a person who is not a journalist and whose raw copies are a nightmare of a sub-editor. First the dept failed in realising my passion to work in journalism, and could also not realise my passion to work for it. So now I have turned my back on the department for good for ever. Whose loss is it?
English is a not a tough language, in fact it is as hard or as easy as any other language or subject. But we need good teachers who can teach this language effectively. Do we have them in numbers they need to be, the answer would invariably be no. Similarly as journalists, most teachers also become teachers because they have nothing else. It's easy to pass or manage a B.Ed. The eligibility of teachers in PMC schools is 12th pass, I read in a advertisement. Even in other schools, the conditions are not that good. Go to the top two colleges in Pune and you will find that the teachers who teach english to BA and MA classes, cannot even speak fluently. If this is the state and such are the teachers, what more can we expect? Students coming out of such teaching and then enrolling at such J-schools, become journalists and then end up molesting the English language. It's an era of Shift+F7 and with students coming out of poor teaching, they are going to misuse it, throwing heavy and misfit words at the readers. With most readers too coming out of such schools and colleges, they find even simple words hard.
So when the disease lies in the heart and brain, we are trying to treat the hand.
Sorry, I may have gone on a different path, but that's what I feel on the entire issue.
Regards
Omkar
PS: I recently got a question from a DOCJ student that whether the state education secretary I was talking to was the secretary of the education minster.
Omkar Sapre - I agree with you on the following points:
ReplyDelete1. There is no need to use the same words used 20 years ago. New words get coined, get into disctionaries too. But my problem is that when doing so - as much as when using the older words - writers ignore rules of grammar. Words, styles, meanings can change but grammar rules language. And use of the right word is most important. Why misconvey anything?
2. People who can't get jobs elsewhere drift into journalism. Yes, most do and are woefully short on the skills required. Even a spell in J-schools does not seem to change their approach to a profession they took to. But the point is most great journalists drifted into journlaism without training and did so well they remain iconic to the professions decades after they left the scene. Once can prepapre a list as long as your arm.
3. Teachers and lawyers are poorly equipped too. They get to BEd and DEd schools because no other place finds them fit in most cases. The state of our education and law courts is a manifestation of poor quality products of the system. Journalism too seems to be in the same bracket though I find the enthusiasm there in J-school graduates but are directionless. They pay no attention to fundamentals that would make them better journalists.
4. I woould be happy to find people like those who botched up on competitive exams and moved to journalism. If that were the case then our journalism would have been far better than it is now.
5. Your postscript: I too have come across such cases. When a Bill is introduced in the legislature or parliament, newspapers write about 'tabling' of the same. Such is the pathetic level of understanding of things they report on.
Mahesh Vijapurkar --
ReplyDeleteI completely respect the journalists, you have referred to in you point 2. Nowhere do I intend to comment on any of the great journalists who have been iconic. I have my dues respects for them because they have given their blood and sweat to this profession. Whatever I have written is based on only those people I have seen enter in journalism in the last 10 years that I have been in this field. I have seen myself very closely how these young J-school grads come out of the schools and shamefully molest this profession. With the boom that media saw in the four-five years prior to 2009, all such grads got recruited in the newspapers, channels etc, and have got on important beats, positions etc, which is why the sorry state now.
And I completely disagree with you point 4. I have worked and seen many such people. It is not at all better for journalism. Studying for MPSC-not being able to clear it and commitment to journalism are extremely diverse things. We needs great storytellers, who can tell real life stories. We need people with skills of getting information from any other person. I have seen such civil-exam aspirants who have come into journalism, misfiring on all cylinders.
I do not know if French Fries is the same person as Omkar Sapre - the profile is missing. Let that be.
ReplyDeleteWe have differeing perspectives on the issues you raised but let me clarify a few points.
You would be wrong in assuming that J-schools alone are behind the needs of the society; the entire system is flawed, dated, without content to the present context and does not uphold, help cherish or nurture which are values for all times.
I have taught in several J-schools as visiting faculty, in Pune and in Mumbai, and have found that the students are bright-eyed but clueless and and remain so in most cases that way till they graduate. There are exceptions and some exceptional students who were mentored by me over the years but I can count them on my fingers.
You have to appreciate that students take career decisions to suit their compulsions and if some do take to mass media courses to hone their skill sets, no harm is done to the course. Even if it were only to improve their ratings elsewhere. As it is, far more students are emerging from these institutions than could be abosrbed. And even those who are absorbed are below par; I have always hesitated to suggest even internship for most students of these courses because I am unsure about their commitment and skills.
What would be better for journalism is to contribute to it than tell people not to use the facilities available. That would be anti-knowledge; education is a liberal thing and people can and should go where they find the best resources for the intended purpose.
The batch of students which graduated from Journalism College in Osmania University in 1973 has done remarkably well, in fact much better than those later but some of those who climbed the pyramids in which they were interested have reached the top - banking, management, civil service et al.
The comment titled "Good initiative, but regressive" by Omkar Sapre is a case in point. If an initiative is good, how is it regressive? If it is regressive, how could it be termed good?
In your comment, French Fries, you have used words like 'molest this profession' and if you, with your background and position can write like that, then this 'good but regressive' blog would be useful. Look at the usage of words, grammar etc in the post and you would kindly realise the potential this blog has to render help. I mean no disrespect but only attempt to draw your attention.
My suggestion is that people should be encouraged to use it.
Hi
ReplyDeleteFrench Fries is the same person as Omkar Sapre, some problem why the profile is missing.
Firstly, "Good initiative, but regressive" isn't my heading. I've said I like it, but see this as regressive, because of the reasons which exist as enlisted in the post, and pending which, I see this as regressive.
My views are only based on the scenario in the last 10 years, as already clarified. I may be wrong in assuming that J-schools are responsible, but your own comment proves I am right. You've taught at several J-schools, but most students you found are not even fit to suggest for internship and over the years, only a handful exceptional students, should speak for itself. As I said earlier, most J-schools have not been able to, or rather have failed, including the DOCJ in recent times, to instil or recognise the passion for journalism in their students. The fact that over the years the better ones you can only count on your fingers, should prove this beyond doubt. I do not support anti-knowledge and I also believe education is a liberal thing. If you read The Economic Times, you will find I have written on a recent move, which was anti-knowledge, so much that I have even gone to the extent of having the government reverse the move. So people should come into J-schools, but are our J-schools able to churn out responsible and passionate journalists?
You are free to dissect the usage of words and grammar. The same words and language that journos used 20 years ago, would not be seen today. But it is still spelt as pronunciation and not pronounciation.
I erred in spelling 'pronunciation' as 'pronounciation'. Thank you for spotting it and drawing my attention.
ReplyDeleteI remain steadfast in my view that J-schools are not out bounds for those who wish to use it to sharpen skills needed elsewhere. As it is, not all get into or able to get into media for several reasons cited in my response. It is not the preserve of only those who want to be journalists.
All institutions should strive towards systemic improvements.